Month: November 2011

In response to Melissa Lui’s conclusive blog “Work With Me!!”, it was interesting to find that disempowering an employee is a plausible solution when handling “disgruntled” individuals.

Let’s face it, conflict is inevitable in any organization – wherever there are people, there are problems. Although there are countless ways to deal with these issues, it was surprising that disempowerment made the list. Depending on the situation, we would typically assume that empowering a dissatisfied employee will enable them to switch gears and go back to work. However, in most scenarios, this is simply not the case.

Imagine your coworker has gone, over your head, informing your supervisor of false rumours regarding your job performance, costing you a promotion. What are your initial feelings? Would empowerment really allow you to overcome this obstacle, or would it simply spread the negativity throughout the company? Lui tells us that since disgruntled employees are less likely to contribute positively to the company; therefore, the situation should be quarantined, and addressed by a qualified agent. Resolving organizational conflict in secrecy may be a plausible solution, but it’s effects are short-lived. Ultimately, empowering employees to overcome the conflict themselves will ensure the prevention of conflict in the long-run.

In Harvard Business Review’s “The Products Chinese Consumers Want“, Max and Yuval reveal that, “China’s consumer goods market expanded rapidly over the past two decades primarily because of the growing number of first-time buyers” (Magni, Atsmon). A first-time buyer is defined as a consumer that purchases goods that they were unable to buy before. As a result, many industries in China are suffering; the majority of markets are slowing to a trickle. This dilemma stems from the companies’ inability to not only adapt, but cater to the market on all levels.

Companies in China are failing to retain and increase revenue figures simply because of their “monolithic country-level strategy“(Magni, Atsmon) approach. In short, Magni and Atsmon’s argument educates us that companies must pinpoint and capitalize on the best opportunites available in order to stay in business. Although this fact seems blatantly

obvious, why is it that companies continue to suffer? Corporate greed, perhaps? In my opinion, this is the result of the viscous cycle of success and ignorance. As businesses confidently implement their lucrative strategies in China’s market, they become blinded to new opportunities, such as the market of developing regions. It is vital that businesses prioritize growth opportunities, deploy limited resources, and ultimately decide if it is profitable to pursue or pull out of the market.

With their free gourmet buffets, in-house professional masseuses, and decompression/stress capsules, it’s no surprise that Universum crowned Google as the most attractive employer of 2011. Evidently, Google maintains their leading rank through promoting a remarkably positive organizational culture. At first glance, a typical day as a Google employee may seem like all play and no work; however, Google’s culture is the fuel that motivate their employees to continue working hard for this winning company.

For every organization, a positive organizational culture emerges at the very start. Aspects of the organization’s culture that we can see and feel include the decorative cubicles, magnificently designed rooms, and of course, the repetition of company’s four colours. These artifacts serve as intrinsic motivators for employees to build up the desire to show up at work, decreasing turnover and absenteeism.

Although the company has grown immensely since 1998, Google has consistently to maintained their “small company feel“, for good purpose. The result is a decentralized chain of command that encourages innovation, and simply creating a friendly environment that makes work enjoyable. Ultimately, Google’s inclusively selected employees are empowered to overcome any obstacles that the company encounters.

Chip Wilson founded Lululemon Athletica Inc. in 1998, selling yoga apparel in a modest basement of a yoga studio. Wilson, motivated by the desire to empower customers towards living healthier lifestyles, rapidly expanded the company into some 1351 franchised and company-owned stores. Lululemon is an entrepreneurial business because of its innovative products, entrance into a high risk market, and their ability to rake in billions in merely 13 years.

What makes consumers want to purchase a pair of Lululemon’s signature pants? As stated by Professor Gateman, “Lululemon pants, Hunter boots, and white-wired headphones have become the uniform of UBC students”; marketers have brainwashed consumers that they ought to wear these products. Lululemon’s unique and patented innovative advancements has provided them with a powerful competitive edge, allowing them to expand their market from yoga to simply general fashion.

Lululemon’s initial entrance into the industry was very risky. Despite the terrible economy, Lululemon has big competitors to worry about, such as Nike and Adidas. In response, Lululemon fought back with “grassroots marketing”, a marketing strategy that targets local consumers through community involvement. Through this strategy, Lululemon stores sold clothes by day and transformed into yoga studios by night. Lululemon’s competitiveness has proven them a strong player in a risky market with big players.